Only 7 amendments left
 

This is a posting from Slashdot, I'm blockquoting here, although you can follow the <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40779&cid=4338327">link</a> to the posting itself. Copyright by the <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/~scheming%20daemons/">poster</a>.

<blockquote>
The current regime in Washington has effectively eliminated the 1st, 4th, and 10th ammendments of our constitution.
<p>
1. In a Pittsburgh campaign stop last month, the Bush people made local law enforcement herd sign-carrying protestors into a fenced off, "designated free speech zone" (that's what they called it! I'm not joking...) more than 1/2 mile from the event. One protestor, carrying a sign saying "Bush must love the poor, he's created so many of us", decided that a "designated free speech zone" is a contradiction in terms (and unconstitutional). He decided to hop the fence and stand next to the people carrying pro-Bush signs. He was arrested. He violated no law, but was considered a "threat" because he had the nerve to carry an anti-Bush sign where Bush might see it.
<p>
2. The voters of California decided, through ballot initiative, that medical use of marijuana was legal. The Ashcroft justice department, deciding that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply anymore, decided to arrest Marijuana growers in California who were growing it with the expressed permission of the California government. "States' Rights" Republicans are apparently only worried about those rights when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and abortion laws, apparently.
<p>
3. And finally, the U.S. Patriot Act. Practically authored by Ashcroft, and passed overwhelmingly by a fearful and gutless congress (only Russ Feingold having the intestinal fortitude to stand against it in the senate), the Patriot Act effectively eliminates all remaining protections of the 4th ammendment... The "drug war" weakened it, and the Patriot act killed it.
<p>
With the current group in charge, you can bet that every ammendment in the Bill of Rights, save for the 2nd, is in danger.
<p>
Wait until some <i>alleged</i> terrorist tries to "plead the 5th". Then we'll be down to 6.
</blockquote>

Comments, disagreements?

X.

Yeh. The second use of "apparently" in point 2 is redundant.

I've had a theory about protests for a while now that, if I was doing work in Sociology or Political Science, I would make my thesis. I may eventually write a paper on it for a conference or something anyway.

The idea is that protesting has lost almost every bit of impact it once had. People don't care about protests anymore, so the entities/policies these people are protesting end up winning after all. Protesting has become a joke - ie. Clinton's comments at WTO meeting in 2000 ("Kids always need something to protest" or some such thing.), news reports that basically belittle the protesters...and then there was the show I saw on Fox while on vacation. In the vein of World's Deadliest Car Crashes, the show displayed footage of various protests, with a voice-over by some sarcastic wise-cracker to provide the entertainment. What these people are upset about wasn't important.

When protesting has entered into the mainstream public consciousness in such a way, it has about as much impact as a Nordstrom's President's Day Sale. So what can be done in its place? Many of the recent anti-globalization protests have resulted in violence. While this did raise the status of the protests in the public consciousness, it did so in a negative way. And, by many definitions of the word, these violent actions can be construed as terrorist actions (ie. political violence).

I don't know what would replace them, and there's a lot more to the theory than just this; esp. in dealing with our consumeristic society and the effect this has had on deadening the public intellect - which can easily be related. So not to hijack the thread, but does any of this make any sense, or am I just more off my rocker than usual?

It makes sense.

In America we spell it "amendment".

And they aren't "eliminated" by isolated events. Threatened, yes, and the importance of documenting and understanding each threat is vitally important. I'm just saying the guy did a shitty job.

Re: Only 7 amendments left
 

Let's flash back to November 1996. Clinton was in town for a campaign stop, and myself and a few friends had some signs to protest his visit. The people controlling the gate tried to physically take our signs away and hand out Clinton-friendly signs instead. Only when we got together in a group and rushed past them were we able to get our signs in. Luckily the local law enforcement wasn't too big on Clinton either, and they basically sided with us.

The phrase "the Bush people" is misleading. These events, for the most part, aren't organized by the candidate, but by the local party. Just like the guy at the gate during Clinton's visit was some local Democrat zealot, the guys who herded protesters off during the Bush visit were local Republican zealots. Bush probably didn't know a thing about it until afterwards, if even then.

I guaran-fucking-tee there's more to this story than this pre-chewed thoughtbite summary. Conveniently, there are no links to any news item or independent witness. Funny, you'd think Bush having people arrested for dissenting opinions would have made the news.

Regardless of what one thinks of the Patriot Act, how does an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill show the intentions of the "current regime" in Congress? If practically everyone agrees with it, it doesn't matter who wrote it. It sounds like 99.9% of our elected officials deleted the amendment, not the administration.

Re: Re: Only 7 amendments left
 

Just because Congress approved the Act doesn't mean they currently do. Do you really think that would pass now (Ok, maybe now, but after the elections)? The only reason it did then was the immediately-post-September 11th climate generally did not allow a congressman to not vote for anything with the word "Patriot" in the title. And yeah, that law is a pile of crap that courts are throwing out parts of seemingly every other week.

Re: Re: Only 7 amendments left
 

Why do you automatically assume people are only telling the half-truth if their statements are at odds with your own emotional response?

http://www.legitgov.org/front_pittsb...st_090202.html
http://www.legitgov.org/front_pittsb...st_090302.html

It's not funny that it didn't make big news, it's a sad testament to the state of US mainstream media. Protesters being arrested don't make big headlines; as stated in another thread, they are conveniently thought of as yet another group of usually young people who just want to make trouble. The example given of Fox making a 'world's scariest protest riots', with mocking voiceover, only compounds that impression. Protesters being arrested for 'misbehaving' - well, they obviously did something wrong.

X.

PS: If you doubt the truthfulness of that stement, entering <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pittsburgh+bush+campaign+arrested">four search terms</a> into Google would have shown the given links on the second result. It would have taken roughly the same time to verify the veracity of the statement that it took you to write a protesting posting claiming that there's more to it and that it's convenient that there were no links. I don't blame you, though (and I am being perfectly earnest here): I'd be more inclined to complain rather than check for myself, if I disagreed with something. It's human nature.

Tony, thanks for that link - it provides the additional 'eyewitness' and 'third-party' reports Tobiasly was asking for. The guy (65 yrs old) really did nothing but stand outside the fenced area, and got arrested - as well as his sister who ran after him as he was being taken away in handcuffs.

Choice quotations from the article:

"Neville Police Superintendent Edward Selzer said keeping protesters behind a fence was his idea.

"You can't deny them the right to demonstrate, but you can restrict where they demonstrate," said Selzer, a Neville officer for 42 1/2 years. "It's best for everybody that way."

That example of double-speak is truly Orwellian. (without wanting to inflame the previous Orwellian thread) It's obviously not best for everybody, namely the people who want to protest, who this applies to. Jews need to wear yellow stars for their protection, it's best for everybody that way. Black people need segregated areas etc., to keep everybody happy. Girls need to study different subjects at school compared to boys - it's in everybody's best interest to cater to their talents. The government needs to protect its people from harmful information and imagery - it's best for everybody that way.

You really couldn't make that up. Re-read that last sentence: "but you can restrict where they demonstrate", which means any arbitrary designated area set by figures of authority, presumably. It's funny, really - some Eastern Block states had alternative parties as well, you didn't need to vote Socialist. You don't need to cheer for the incumbent regime either, you can be assigned to an area out of sight where most of the crowd won't see you, where the camera's most likely won't spot you, and where the candidates certainly will not detect your presence. You can't restrict freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc., either, presumably, but you can restrict where it is allowed, then. Excellent. I wonder how people would react if they were told that they could only carry firearms whilst standing on grass. Or that they could only practice their religion in areas designated by the government, somewhere on ten hectares in Colorado, where it's safe, and "best for everybody."

"Various people with signs friendly to Bush were allowed to stand along Neville Island's main street, where the president's motorcade passed. One Neville Island woman carried a homemade sign that said, "Hello, George." She said she stood along the street for about seven hours until Bush arrived."

The police superintendent, stated, however: "You can't have them meandering around, carrying signs. That's disorderly."

Ah, doublespeak again, in this case associating "them" with "those who are opposed to us." Mind you, I do agree with the Secret Service (who made sure that there would be no negative protesters running around freely) that stringent security measures need to be kept. The way in which it is justified, however, seems utterly unbelievable.

X.

PS: I don't know if the Post-Gazette qualifies as major news media, I'd assume so. The fact that they have a special 'First Amendment Forum' category seems to make them somewhat special, even if it's tucked away far from the public eye in a subcategory of 'About Us'. Do you know if it made the print edition, by chance, or if it was just a web article made in the Gazette's First Amendment web forum? They certainly seem to focus on the 1Amendment angle, following it up with an article <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/FirstAmendment/20020905brian5.asp">here</a>. Interestingly, the followup <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/FirstAmendment/20020906edprotest0906p2.asp">editorial</a> then dismisses the first amendment threat as mere "bruising", claiming that it was an insignificant offence that doesn't merit such great attention. The abortion-clinic protester comparison drawn there is also fairly inaccurate, since those merely need to provide a corridor of considerable size but are allowed to picket around the clinics, as long as they are not on private property; comparing that with the right to assembly and speech on public grounds is grossly misleading.

The Post-Gazette is the standard Knight-Ridder major newspaper in Pittsburgh. It has done some sterling work on the war on drugs.

hey, cut it out. theres enough kooks hiding out around here. they can have wyoming. :)

Or North Dakota.

For that matter, should places like Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming even be states? Fair trade--give the kooks Wyoming, and Puerto Rico can replace Wyoming as the "missing" state.

syc, you should run for president.

~james

Re: Re: Re: Only 7 amendments left
 

Because there are two sides to every story. I make it a personal rule that whenever I hear one side of the story, I never, never, <I>never</I> make a judgment on it until I hear the other side.

So to answer your question, I assume people are telling the half-truth because most people have a position on an issue and only tell their half of the story. Your links to legitgov.org, an organization that, as they state on their front page, is an "activist group established to expose the Bush coup d'etat, and to oppose the Bush occupation in all of its manifestations" isn't exactly hearing the other side of the story.

Now UT's link was different. It was an objective report that showed the other side of the story. And while there was "more to the story" than what the /. poster said or what legitgov.org posted, I wholeheartedly agree that the police were pretty much all washed up here. So yes, I agree this is a case of trampling the first amendment, but I didn't come to that conclusion until I heard both sides.

Why is it that you chide me in one thread for what you consider as my blythely accepting the president's PR as truth, but expect me to do the exact same thing when I hear it from somewhere else? Why should I expect that people are telling the whole story when there is obviously an agenda to their one-sided representation? And why do you assume my response is "emotional"?

And by the way, as to the original topic.. none of this shows that it's the Bush administration trampling the First Amendment. The secret service made the rules, and the local cops of Neville Island enforced them rather poorly. Same thing woulda (or coulda) happened if it were any other president.

Nah...I like being the King of Torresdale for the time being. Although, you may have seen my pipe dream of running for Philadelphia City Council.

It seems I'm haunted by the same spectres, no matter which thread. :) Let's see how well this one works out.
But by saying "I guaran-fucking-tee there's more to this story than this pre-chewed thoughtbite summary" you are doing more than saying that there's another side; you imply that the author ("pre-chewed thoughtbite summary", I could swear I used that exact phrase in a posting about 12 hours ago) is tainting it with his own opinion. While it's true that he uses it to strengthen his own argument, there is little indication by default that he'd falsify the information given. By saying that it's "convenient" that he didn't give any links or sources, you strengthen the reader's impression that the author had something to conceal.

Sure, there are always two sides to a story, although the given example is particularly one-sided. Nonetheless, the impression given by your response seems overly harsh and (since you're swearing, which I haven't seen you do too much in other posts), adds another, incensed-seeming dimension to it. That is why I claimed that your response was emotional, because it seemed like a typical knee-jerk response, in the vein of 'it seems one-sided, where are the sources, I bet there's more to it, it's probably false since the press would have reported it otherwise.' (note that it's not a quotation, merely my impression of a given thought process, and the resulting reaction).

I hope you'd note that I was mostly disappointed with your reaction because you attacked the posting without checking anything yourself first. As I wrote in its introduction, it was a posting to Slashdot, not a scholarly treatise on civil rights erosion in the US. Thorough references are not to be expected; since its writer isn't on the board, it ought to be your duty to check if it's true before attacking it; if I had written it, it'd be my duty to present at least some sort of circumstantial evidence.

The links I provided were eyewitness reports by the people who got arrested, or who took part in the protest. Indeed, they belong to a partisan organisation, but that doesn't mean they aren't accurate. The link provided by Tony, which I thanked him for, fully backed the links that you didn't take seriously because they didn't represent "the other side." I understand you want both sides, but personally I would try to avoid attacking a report before I have heard both sides. My criticism of your initial posting was over that - imho unwarranted - attack. You didn't have both sides, but your posting sounded like it was discrediting the author's intention. That was my problem.
Not at all; I was just appalled by what I perceived to be a knee-jerk emotional response intended to discredit something before obtaining proof to the contrary. (emotional, as explained above)

I am uncertain how involved Bush's policymakers and PR people are in instructing the SService to keep dissenters out of the way; the SService is not incorruptible by the incumbents' decisions. Speculating whether it would/could have happened with another president is moot; the current socio-political climate simply doesn't seem to permit much, if any, dissent. Thus the First Amendment slant of the poster.

Nonetheless, thank you for contributing to this thread. I intended to solicit opinions, and I am happy that you are adding to it, even if I didn't agree with the way you presented your opinion at first. (or supposed lack thereof) Let's keep the conversation on-topic. :)

If you want additional links and information regarding the current administration's restrictions of the First Amendment, have a look <a href="http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.alert.html">here</a>. (or <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+first+amendment">here</a>, the first link is somewhat out-of-date)

X.


--
"[T]o those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists -- for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." -- John Ashcroft